Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
‘Crystal Skull' lives up to previous three films
By Cheryl Scott
Daily News staff writer
First off, there's no spoiler alert on this review because we won't be giving away too much of the movie.
If you liked the other three movies, you'll be happy to know “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” stuck to the same feeling of campy fun, adventure and action, as a few Beloit moviegoers also noted after yesterday's 7:30 p.m. showing.
Nevertheless, the fourth movie drifts into supernatural territory that is less related to religious artifacts than the other three. Without giving away too much, the fourth one might require the viewer to suspend reality more than they did in the other three. At least that's what many moviegoers said about the new focus of the fourth “Indiana Jones” movie.
The latest movie takes place in 1957, at the height of the Cold War. Jones' involuntary association with Soviets during the beginning of the film make the U.S. government suspicious of him. As Jones leaves town, he meets a young man named Mutt (Shia LeBeouf), whose parents are in danger. Jones knows Mutt's professor father and agrees to venture into Peru with the young man to rescue his parents and discover the secrets of the eerie Crystal Skull of Akator. The Soviets are hot on Jones' trail, also seeking to capture the powers of the Crystal Skull to help them dominate the world.
If you're a critic, some of the unbelievable supernatural happenings in the fourth movie could disappoint you. Yet if you're just going to see the movie to watch a good, action-packed adventure and don't want to pick apart how realistic it is, then you'll enjoy it. Besides, were the other three actually realistic at all times? Does anyone really know if looking at the opened Ark of the Covenant will cause your face and body to melt with the coolness of ‘80s special effects or kill you in another gruesome way? I doubt it, but I suppose belief in religious stories is easier for some to swallow than the belief in psychic powers and other supernatural forces seen in the “Crystal Skull.”
There aren't too many movies that can recreate the fun, action-packed campiness that movies made in the 1980s seemed to have. “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” tries for that feeling, but can't recreate it completely. For one, we aren't looking back on the film from 20-some years into the future, with fond nostalgia that Indiana Jones fans have for the other three films. Two, there are some computer graphics (namely, unrealistic CGI animals, crawling out of dirt mounds or swinging through trees) that date the film to 2008 and make it apparent that we aren't still in the ‘80s.
As for acting, for those wondering if Harrison Ford still has it after all these year, the answer is yes. He's still getting into fistfights, using his whip at opportune moments and running from adventure to adventure with the energy he had in the past films. Yet in this movie, Jones is seen as a little wiser and although he's still tough, he has less of the need to show off his manliness. Some of the boldness is left up to his new sidekick, Mutt - especially when it comes to dealing with snakes.
Mutt (LeBeouf) does a decent job as Jones' new sidekick. Although he starts off seeming like he might be annoying, with his excessive Greaser combing of the hair, he adapts well as the adventure unfolds. He also doesn't have the annoying quality of sidekicks in other “Indiana Jones” films, such as Short Round (with apologies to the Beloit woman who said Short Round was her favorite character).
Overall, the film can be enjoyed for its attempt to stay close to the originals, but it also gives viewers new material, twists and excitement. I'd give it three stars out of four.
What are the other critics saying?
€ Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times - 3.5 stars out of four stars
€ Michael Phillips, Chicago Tribune - two stars out of four
€ Peter Travers, Rolling Stone - 2.5 out of four stars
€ Christy Lemire, Associated Press - two stars out of four
€ The Web site www.rottentomatoes.com, which tracks reviews, states that 79 percent of the 171 critics gave the movie a good review. The movie had received 135 good reviews and 36 rotten ones, as of Thursday night. The average rating from critics was 7.1 out of 10.
However, only 63 percent of top critics featured on the site gave the movie a good review. Of the 35 top critics, 22 gave it a positive review and 13 gave it a bad review. The average rating was 6.3 out of 10.
Daily News staff writer
First off, there's no spoiler alert on this review because we won't be giving away too much of the movie.
If you liked the other three movies, you'll be happy to know “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” stuck to the same feeling of campy fun, adventure and action, as a few Beloit moviegoers also noted after yesterday's 7:30 p.m. showing.
Nevertheless, the fourth movie drifts into supernatural territory that is less related to religious artifacts than the other three. Without giving away too much, the fourth one might require the viewer to suspend reality more than they did in the other three. At least that's what many moviegoers said about the new focus of the fourth “Indiana Jones” movie.
The latest movie takes place in 1957, at the height of the Cold War. Jones' involuntary association with Soviets during the beginning of the film make the U.S. government suspicious of him. As Jones leaves town, he meets a young man named Mutt (Shia LeBeouf), whose parents are in danger. Jones knows Mutt's professor father and agrees to venture into Peru with the young man to rescue his parents and discover the secrets of the eerie Crystal Skull of Akator. The Soviets are hot on Jones' trail, also seeking to capture the powers of the Crystal Skull to help them dominate the world.
If you're a critic, some of the unbelievable supernatural happenings in the fourth movie could disappoint you. Yet if you're just going to see the movie to watch a good, action-packed adventure and don't want to pick apart how realistic it is, then you'll enjoy it. Besides, were the other three actually realistic at all times? Does anyone really know if looking at the opened Ark of the Covenant will cause your face and body to melt with the coolness of ‘80s special effects or kill you in another gruesome way? I doubt it, but I suppose belief in religious stories is easier for some to swallow than the belief in psychic powers and other supernatural forces seen in the “Crystal Skull.”
There aren't too many movies that can recreate the fun, action-packed campiness that movies made in the 1980s seemed to have. “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” tries for that feeling, but can't recreate it completely. For one, we aren't looking back on the film from 20-some years into the future, with fond nostalgia that Indiana Jones fans have for the other three films. Two, there are some computer graphics (namely, unrealistic CGI animals, crawling out of dirt mounds or swinging through trees) that date the film to 2008 and make it apparent that we aren't still in the ‘80s.
As for acting, for those wondering if Harrison Ford still has it after all these year, the answer is yes. He's still getting into fistfights, using his whip at opportune moments and running from adventure to adventure with the energy he had in the past films. Yet in this movie, Jones is seen as a little wiser and although he's still tough, he has less of the need to show off his manliness. Some of the boldness is left up to his new sidekick, Mutt - especially when it comes to dealing with snakes.
Mutt (LeBeouf) does a decent job as Jones' new sidekick. Although he starts off seeming like he might be annoying, with his excessive Greaser combing of the hair, he adapts well as the adventure unfolds. He also doesn't have the annoying quality of sidekicks in other “Indiana Jones” films, such as Short Round (with apologies to the Beloit woman who said Short Round was her favorite character).
Overall, the film can be enjoyed for its attempt to stay close to the originals, but it also gives viewers new material, twists and excitement. I'd give it three stars out of four.
What are the other critics saying?
€ Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times - 3.5 stars out of four stars
€ Michael Phillips, Chicago Tribune - two stars out of four
€ Peter Travers, Rolling Stone - 2.5 out of four stars
€ Christy Lemire, Associated Press - two stars out of four
€ The Web site www.rottentomatoes.com, which tracks reviews, states that 79 percent of the 171 critics gave the movie a good review. The movie had received 135 good reviews and 36 rotten ones, as of Thursday night. The average rating from critics was 7.1 out of 10.
However, only 63 percent of top critics featured on the site gave the movie a good review. Of the 35 top critics, 22 gave it a positive review and 13 gave it a bad review. The average rating was 6.3 out of 10.
 |
 |
|
| AirFest ready for take-off | Idol contestants shoot for stars |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of beloitdailynews.com.
Submit a Comment
Login below to post your comment. |
Not yet a member? Use the form below to register. |
